Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the three-tier timezone precedence (client-reported > argument > UTC) and that the resolved timezone is echoed in week.timezone. No rate limits or pagination notes, but the added context is meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The summary contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavioral rules and then args. It is well organized with no filler, though the trailing Args block partially duplicates the fully-documented schema, slightly blunting conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still enumerates the returned summary components and resolves the timezone ambiguity that would otherwise trip up an agent. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the same timezone precedence rule. The description's Args block largely restates the schema (Monday format, defaults, precedence) and adds little syntax or meaning the schema doesn't already carry. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (weekly training status) and then enumerates exactly what the coaching summary contains: workouts vs goal, days left, set counts, credited sets vs four-week average, and movement patterns. This is far more specific than the sibling get_* tools and lets an agent distinguish it without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly establishes the scope (one Monday-Sunday week) and details the argument resolution rules (client timezone > timezone arg > UTC), which is genuine usage context. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this over siblings like get_schedule or get_training_maxes, so it lacks exclusions, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.